Obama is trapped by his own red line

Obama is trapped by his own red line

Note:  Part one of a two-part series. Part two will be published Sept. 15.

Words matter, but they matter less when they are not accompanied by deeds that make them authentic.

Less than five months after taking the oath of office, President Barack Obama delivered a major address at Cairo University titled, "A New Beginning." It fulfilled a campaign promise that he had made to speak to Muslims. The speech was lengthy, eloquent, hopeful, and was closely followed not only by Muslims but throughout the world.

In it, the president said, "I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world ... [based on] principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

As Congress now prepares to debate whether to support Obama's decision to launch a military strike to degrade Syria's capacity to use chemical weapons of mass destruction, it's time to take stock of the president's rhetoric at Cairo in 2009 and the standing of the U.S. in the Middle East today.

Syria

The civil war in Syria has been raging for two years. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed, and more than 2 million Syrians have fled their homeland and are now in refugee camps in neighboring nations. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a physician, is a brutal dictator willing to use whatever force is necessary to maintain his control of the Syrian government and to subjugate its people.

A week ago, Obama stunned the world by delaying his military strike on Syria's capacity to make further use of poison gas against its own people. The delay is intended to give the administration time to seek approval of that strike from Congress, approval which Obama maintains is unnecessary.

But Obama's hand has been forced because he is cornered politically. The American people do not support the strike, nor do the United Nations, the Arab League or our most dependable ally, Great Britain. There is no assurance that such a military strike will be successful. More importantly, there is no clarity about whether such a strike will make the situation on the ground better or worse, and whether it might lead to a further escalation of American military involvement in Syria.

Obama is now trapped by the red line he unwisely drew two years ago. On Aug. 20, 2012, he stated, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime ... that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." It is that inelegant statement that now has come back to haunt Obama.

The president now feels compelled to strike militarily given our intelligence assessment that Assad has used sarin gas on his own people. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the president has stated that such a strike is not intended to bring about regime change in Syria and that he believes such a change will be effected through diplomacy. That belief is a flight of fancy.

Regime change isn't going to happen as long as Assad has the strong support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, a dominant Islamic political and militant force in Lebanon, funded by Iran. Hezbollah fighters are in Syria assisting Assad's military.

It's obvious that the only way to effect regime change is to remove Assad, who Secretary of State John Kerry has called a murderer and a thug. Obama has authorized the use of drones for this type of "kill" operation in the Arabian Peninsula, in Africa and along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. It's past time to put Assad's name on a Hellfire missile, something the president has not been willing to do.

Israel

The United States has been the principal ally of the Jewish state since its founding in 1948. The American people will have it no other way. Yet, under the Obama administration, our relationship with Israel is at its nadir.

Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do not like and may not trust each other. Efforts at the creation of the two-state peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians have been deadlocked since Obama took office. If the United States cannot deter Iran from its obsession to acquire nuclear weapons, Israel will not hesitate to take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran

The United States and Iran have been at each other's throat since the Iran hostage crisis in the late 1970s. The current crisis is driven by Iran's clear intention and long-standing program to acquire nuclear weapons. Topping the list of Iran's enemies is the Jewish state of Israel.

The United States has led the effort to impose sanctions on Iran in the hope that such sanctions will deter Iran from its effort to acquire nuclear weapons. The sanctions have exacted a punishing toll on Iran and its people. However, they have not caused Iran to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons capability.

Egypt

The Egypt that existed under Hosni Mubarak when Obama delivered his speech at Cairo University in 2009 is no more. Since then, the United States has stood helplessly on the sidelines as Egypt installed a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, which has now been deposed in a coup led by the Egyptian military.

Our relationship with Egypt has disintegrated. America can't even determine whether we should continue to provide Egypt's military with $1.5 billion in military assistance annually.

The Shadow's in Libya preparing next Sunday's column, but Goldman can be reached at: EmailMe.